I haven’t written a book report since 5th grade, but I recently read a great book that hit on almost every topic I enjoy writing about, so here goes. The Code Breaker is a biography about Nobel Prize winning biochemist Jennifer Doudna by Walter Isaacson (bestselling biographer of Steve Jobs, Einstein, Ben Franklin, and Leonardo da Vinci). The story begins and continuously circles back to James Watson, part of the world-famous duo of Watson and Crick that discovered the double helix structure of DNA. As a young girl Doudna read Watson’s memoir The Double Helix and was fascinated not just by the biology and biochemistry, but also by the contribution of Rosalind Franklin, a young English biochemist whose X-ray diffraction pictures helped cement Watson and Crick’s understanding of the elusive DNA structure. While Franklin’s contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA is not an untold secret, her place in history in unknown to many and was downplayed at the time. Franklin’s story highlights the patriarchal environment of science and academia and foreshadows Doudna’s success in The Code Breaker. Jennifer’s collaboration with another female scientist, Emmanuelle Charpentier (her future co-winner of the Nobel Prize) provides an encouraging divergence from the historical male domination of the STEM fields. Doudna’s takeaway from The Double Helix was not just about the secrets of life hidden in the strands of DNA, but that “girls do science.”  
 
The Code Breaker is not only the tale of strong female scientist achieving greatness in her field, but it is also an insightful story about genetics, biochemistry, the modern pharmaceutical industry, bioethics, patent law (yes, it hits on that as well), and COVID-19. The other star of the book is the focus of Doudna and Charpentier research: CRISPR (“clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats”) a revolutionary gene-editing technology with the ability to forever change the human genome. Each of these topics deserves its own shelf of books and in a perfect world we would immerse ourselves in each subject to understand their ever-increasing effects on our daily lives. However, as they say, life is short, and The Code Breaker is a great primer (pun intended) for all of these topics.                      
 
Isacson’s biography weaves a story around Doudna’s life touching on research, science, IP, commercial development and even the current pandemic. First is the collaborative effort to discover the CRISPR system and its eventual uses in human medicine. Explaining the CRISPR system allows for a walkthrough of both genetics and scientific research. Next the book details the intellectual property battles between Doudna’s UC Berkley team and Feng Zhang’s MIT/Broad Institute team, an excellent introduction to the complexities of patent law for any budding inventor (or patent attorney) and a great tale of scientific rivalries. After the patent wars the book delves into the development of practical applications from theoretical ideas providing insights on the coordination between venture capital, academic research and the biologics industry. Finally, all of these topics are wrapped up in the story of how Doudna’s (and others’) contributions to biotechnology help conquer (hopefully) the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
A critical topic in the book that gets very little discussion outside of academic and medical circles is bioethics. With the fast-changing pace of biotechnology it is not a question of if, but when and how we will change our own DNA and that of our children. Bioethics raises almost infinite questions of ethics and morality with regard to what we should change and who will have access to these technologies. Should we eliminate genetic diseases? Probably some, but we should first have a thorough understanding about what we are doing and what are the long-term effects. Should we allow parents to choose their child’s sex, height, eye color, hair color, muscle mass, skin tone, and intelligence? If yes to even a few of these, who will have access, and if it’s only the rich are we creating a greater and biologically permanent division between the haves and have nots of this world? These are topics that clearly cannot be addressed in a blog post or a single book, but are issues that will need to be discussed and understood by everyone.

The Code Breaker addresses everything from nature versus nurture, the ethics of gene editing (and the ethics of not gene editing), James Watson’s difficult relationship with the scientific community, the tension between scientific cooperation and intellectual property, and the future of medical technology. Even if we cannot have answers to all of these topics its reassuring to at least know the questions are being asked. And on a personal level it’s a great book to hand to my thirteen-year-old daughter with full knowledge that I’ll be drowning in questions as she makes her way to the end.    
 
I hope my book report has addressed the main characters, setting, plot, conflict and resolution in The Code Breaker (I’m hoping for a gold sticker). I’ll submit my report via google classroom and at my blog, “Should I copyright the trademark in my patent?” If you have any questions about patents, trademarks or IP in general please contact me at [email protected] or visit my website at www.chiaraiplaw.com
​

“Law? We don’t need no stinkin’ law” will scream internet denizens to the idea that the metaverse will need to be regulated and operated under a legal framework. However, because of the inevitability of multinational corporations and possibly nation states constructing, maintaining and profiting off of the metaverse (or metaverses) we can just as certainly predict that there will be legal rights and legal consequences applied to the metaverse. While there will be pushback to regulations and restrictions in the metaverse, as seen with attempts to regulate and tax cryptocurrencies, if the metaverse is going to thrive and prosper it will need some form of metaverse law.
 
Let’s backup first and discuss “what is the metaverse?” or “what will the metaverse be?” Most likely it will be some form of communal interactive virtual reality. Unquestionably these already exist, such as online multiplayer games (Call of Duty/Fortnite), videoconferences (Zoom/Google Meet), and virtual world simulations (Sims/Second Life). The metaverse will be a more immersive version of the prior examples likely supplemented by physical equipment such as the Oculus VR goggles and gloves being marketed by Meta (formerly Facebook). Eventually immersive suits or some form of full body interactive system will provide a more complete connection to the metaverse. Individual will be represented in the metaverse by an Avatar that can either mimic the individual or provide a fantasy persona. A pop culture representation of the metaverse can be found in Ready Player One, a great movie and an even better book (particularly for kids raised in the 80’s, read it, you’ll see).
 
So where will legal issues arise? Short answer: everywhere. Because this is a blog post and not a treatise on metaverse law I’ll focus on two overarching topics, jurisdiction and intellectual properly, each of which will someday be their own law school class.
 
Jurisdiction
 
If someone gropes you (or more specifically your Avatar) in the metaverse what is your cause of action, where do you bring your claim, and what are your remedies? The preceding hypothetical is actually being discussed and debated in view of incidents in Meta’s Horizon Worlds and Horizon Venues. Meta’s current response has been to create a default “4-foot bubble” around avatars to prevent unwanted virtual contact (potentially resulting in unwanted hepatic stimulation). Assuming the participant wanted to sue over the unwanted “touching” where do they go for redress? There are a host of possible answers. The first, and likely the situation in the Meta scenario, is that individuals that engage with Meta’s virtual worlds have “read and agreed” to user agreements that establish where, if anywhere, legal claims can be brought. It is likely that participants have waived most claims against Meta and are limited to arbitration proceedings (if any) for actions against third parties. Punishment or liability will likely be limited to suspension or expulsion from the metaverse.
 
However, this concept of user agreement control of all jurisdictional and liability issues in the metaverse starts to breakdown when we look at interactions between different virtual realities within a unified metaverse as well as conflicts with or between the metaverse platform companies. Different virtual realities, or metaverses will likely exist in a macro metaverse. Meta’s Horizon World is one metaverse, and we will likely see independent metaverse platforms from at least Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft (as well as companies yet to be named). All of the different virtual realities/metaverses will exist in a unified metaverse allowing avatars to travel and interact in each of the distinct platforms. Will you be required to accept user agreements for each and every metaverse? Most likely. But what is even more likely is that there will be some form of agreed up default jurisdiction where all potential actions can be brought. This could be an arbitration forum, a currently defined jurisdiction, such as New York, San Francisco, Tokyo or London, or it could be a newly created general purpose metaverse court. A general purpose metaverse jurisdiction could be very attractive to international technology companies that may not want to be bound solely by U.S. law and hope to achieve some form of international jurisdiction for the metaverse (e.g., the International Criminal Court or the Hauge).
 
Whether jurisdiction within the metaverse is limited to arbitration forums (via user agreements), general jurisdictions (via current procedural law), or an international metaverse court system will be left to future legal battles, but we can be assured those battles will be fought. Additionally, when things go “really wrong”, such as intentionally willful criminal actions, it is unlikely any user agreement would keep plaintiffs in arbitration forums, so these issues will eventually need to resolved.
 
Intellectual Property
 
IP rights will be front and center in the metaverse from patent and copyright issues related to the hardware and software that support the metaverse to trademark and copyright issues related to the content offered in the metaverse. These are just a fraction of the possible IP issues that will be raised in the metaverse, but for now let’s use these as starting points.  
 
From the trademark perspective we have already seen brands affirmatively marketing and protecting their trademark properties in the metaverse. NFTs (non-fungible tokens) have also soared in popularity in connection with copyrighted or trademarked material online. If your avatar will be wearing clothing or carrying a pocketbook, why shouldn’t those items be Polo Ralph Lauren and Louis Vuitton? If they are, we know that owners of those brands will want to control use of their trademarks in the metaverse as they do in the real universe. If you are attending a virtual concert in the metaverse featuring Lil Nas X you can bet that a license for the music as well as rights to use his physical likeness will be needed or their will be copyright violations. Additionally, if you are moving your avatar from one metaverse to another there will need to be rules for transferring trademarked or copyrighted material from one metaverse to another. While you should be allowed to sell your virtual trademarked item to another user, this does not mean you can sell virtual copies of a trademarked item, but only the specific one you previously purchased. In addition to NFT’s, these transactions can be covered by smart contracts backed by blockchain. Applications of new technology like blockchain will potentially effect almost every experience in the metaverse.  
 
Patents will not just be focused on hardware (goggle/gloves/suits) and software (platforms for the new metaverses), but will have additional use in the area of design patents and method of use/method of doing business patents applicable to metaverse transactions.
 
Jurisdiction will again be an issue. While there are international systems for filing patents that cover most of the industrialized world, there is no one “international patent” (or trademark/copyright). All IP rights are ultimately national and can only be applied to individuals or corporate entities that are subject to the jurisdiction of that nation state via agreement or current jurisdictional rules. User agreements can only go so far if there is no system to verify the identity of each user and provide some ability to apply liability beyond exclusion. It’s possible that the threat of exclusion will be sufficient to enforce many IP rights early on, but as individuals and companies become more immersed in the metaverse there will be a greater and greater need for a system of monetary or equitable penalties to enforce laws within the metaverse.
 
Of course, there will also be some darknet version of the metaverse. A dark metaverse (not hosted by multinational corporations/nation states) will eventually be a reality, but applying the norms of IP law in such a scenario will likely be as difficult as forcing law and liability on the current darknet.                 
 
We do not know exactly what the metaverse of the future will look like, who will be the greatest major platform provider, and exactly what the rules of the game will be, but we can guarantee there will be some rules. To enforce those rules we will need metaverse law. As we have seen with the internet, many laws can be adapted from existing frameworks, but that is just a starting point. Changes in technology, commerce, and human behavior will influence how the metaverse law evolves and adapts. We can make some starting assumptions on how things will begin, but the future will be always advancing, and metaverse law will need to change and adapt to keep up.   

If you have any questions about patents, trademarks or copyrights, and would like to discuss protection and registration please contact me at [email protected] or visit my website at www.chiaraiplaw.com
​

Followers of U.S. patent practice will understand that patent law and its application in the U.S. courts and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has an ebb and flow from patent friendly to patent hostile. Historically this trend moves like a pendulum peaking in one direction and then pulling back to repeat the flow from overly liberal in the allowance and enforcement of patents to overly conservative and restrictive of allowable patent scope.
 
So where are we today on the patent spectrum? Arguably we are very high on the patent hostile side. Two major factors weighing on anti-patent sentiment in the U.S. are patent eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. §101, and post grant procedures enacted by the American Invents Act (AIA).
 
First let’s address patent eligibility. 35 U.S.C. §101 requires inventions to fall within certain categories of statutorily patent eligible subject matter. There categories include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Conversely, courts have defined three areas of patent ineligibility, namely, laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Historically there was very little (at least compared to the last ten years) discussion of what patent eligible subject matter meant and how to apply it. However, two areas of modern technology have drastically ratcheted up the discussion of patent eligibility. These areas are computer assisted technology/software and biotechnology, and the relevant court cases are Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (“Alice”) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs. Inc. (“Mayo”). Without getting into a dissertation on how to apply the rules of patent eligibility and/or the holding in Alice/Mayo and their progeny, a short explanation is that computer software patent claims that solely recite abstract ideas (e.g., a method for hedging financial risk) and biotechnology patent claims that recite naturally occurring compositions of matter (e.g., a DNA marker for breast cancer) are patent ineligible. This a massively truncated explanation of how these classes of inventions have been limited, but the fact is that they have been limited. It has become much more difficult to obtain and subsequently enforce patents in these technological areas.    
 
There are reasons why these limitations exist. The patent system was designed to promote innovation and not just discovery. Inventions should provide novel applications of inventive ideas, not just the abstract idea itself or the identification of the compound found in nature. At the extreme ends of patent eligibility these concepts seem relatively simple, but in practice a mix of abstract ideas and natural compositions with inventive methods, processes, compositions and article of manufacture have led to invalidity and unpatentability of thousands of patent applications in the last decade. Subsequently, this preference for reduced allowability to avoid potentially patent ineligible inventions has results in fewer patents and very likely a reduction of investment in U.S. biotechnology.
 
The second recent development (recent being the last 10 to 15 years) was the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, and subsequent enactment of its provision over the following years. The AIA, also referred to as the Patent Reform Act, created multiple changes in U.S. patent law that generally brought the U.S. in line with most of the world’s industrialized nations. These features include changing the U.S. to a first-to-file country (from a first-to-invent), updating applicant eligibility (allowing corporations, and not just inventors to be the applicant for patents), and adding additional post-grant procedures to challenge patents at the USPTO (as opposed to litigating in federal courts). Two of the new post-grant procedures of particular importance to this discussion are IPRs (Inter Partes Reviews) and PGRs (Post Grant Reviews). As a summary explanation, IPRs allow challenges to any pending patent (all first-to-invent, and first-to-file patents 9 months after grant), but with limited challenges (obviousness and anticipation); and PGRs allow challenges to any patent filed after March 2013 (but within 9 months of the patent grant or reissue) with expanded challenges compared to IPRs. These procedures are similar to many post grant procedures that exist in other countries or regions, particularly oppositions in the European Patent Office (EPO). Arguably these procedures have made it more cost effective for entities to challenge patents. The USPTO procedures are intended to reduce litigation discovery costs and the duration of litigation. As an example, IPR/PRG’s are designed to reach a final decision in 18 months and can cost around $100,000. In contrast, federal district court litigations can take multiple years and cost millions of dollars.
 
What is undisputable is that these new procedures have made it easier to challenge and invalidate patents. While this may lead to a better crop of patents with poorer patents being weeded out before they can be asserted and litigated in courts, it also increases the chances for all patents to be invalidated by decreasing the hurdles for patent challenges.
 
Should the U.S. be more patent friendly or continue in this anti-patent trend? The answer often depends on your view of patents. Patents are governments grants of a limited monopoly in exchange for the public disclosure of novel and non-obvious invention (including the know how to practice these inventions). The tradeoff is designed to advance technology through the disclosure and simultaneously support research and development with the promise of limited future exclusivity. The public disclosure of the innovation (in contrast to trade secret protection) enables others to understand and build on the technology, hopefully leading to greater technological advancements. A counter argument to increasing the strength and value of patents is the view that patents are anti-competitive and reduce incentives to innovate and commercialize new products and technologies for fear of infringing existing patents. The challenge is to balance the competing interests of increased incentives to innovate while simultaneously providing competitive and fair marketplaces. These countervailing interests create the ying and yang that pull patent law in different directions over time.  
 
Recently the pendulum has swung significantly into anti-patent territory, but history suggests it will likely swing back. While it is unlikely we will see wholesale elimination of IPR and PRG’s, their scope and enforcement will probably be tamed. Further, Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions (followed by USPTO allowability guidelines) will likely temper the patent eligibility requirements currently in force. It will take time, but eventually the U.S. will be back in a patent friendly mindset. In the future the pendulum will likely move towards overly patent friendly, and then oscillate back toward anti-patent sentiment, but hopefully by then I will be long, long retired.
 
If you have any questions about patents, trademarks or copyrights, and would like to discuss protection and registration please contact me at [email protected] or visit my website at www.chiaraiplaw.com
​

When asked by prospective clients what a trademark clearance search is my first response is usually to explain that it is akin to insurance for your trademark filing and eventual trademark use.
 
For those new to the IP world, there are a few points to start with about trademarks that will help explain the following discussion on clearance searches (and opinions, more below). First, trademarks (or marks) are used to identify your goods or services and distinguish your goods and services from competitors in the marketplace. A second point is that while using the exact same name on the exact same goods or services as another person will clearly causes problems (potential registration rejections and infringement), so to can using similar marks on similar goods and services. So, while most people will recognize the problematic nature of a duplicate mark on the same goods and service, it is more difficult to understand the relevance of similar marks on similar goods and services. The importance of the level of similarity becomes the focus of the trademark clearance opinion letter discussed further below. A third point that is often not intuitive to first time trademark filers is that the USPTO employs classes to distinguish the types of goods and services upon which the mark will be employed. Similar goods and services are grouped together to facilitate the searching. For example, spoons, forks and sponges, are grouped together in class 21 (household goods), and T-shirts, sweaters and pants are grouped in class 25 (clothing). You can file, and have your mark searched, in multiple classes if you are employing the mark on different goods and services, however, this will increase the filing and searching fees, as well as the possibility of conflicts with similar marks. One significance of the classes is that if a third party mark that is similar to your mark is also listed on a good or service in the same class as your mark it will increase the relevance of what is referred to as “the likelihood of confusion” and ultimately may lead to a potential filing rejection or finding of infringement.             
 
So, what is the clearance search and how is it done? The clearance search can be done completely in-house by an attorney (with or without help from staff/paralegals/assistants) or, and this is by far the more prevalent current method, the search can be conducted by a third-party software-based search firm. The search will generally cover United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registered trademarks and pending applications, U.S. state trademarks, domain names, social media pages/usernames, websites, and general internet searches. These searches can be expanded (at additional cost) to foreign trademark databases. Typically, these searches cost about $150-$500 depending on whether the mark is a word mark, logo mark, combination word/logo mark, the number of classes of goods or services being searched, and whether the search will cover foreign registrations (this is the estimated search firm fee, not the cost for the attorney to review and opine on the search results).
 
The reason third-party searching firms are used for most clearance searches is that they employ well tested software that runs algorithms that can generate detailed reports in minutes that would take human researches hours if not days. Additionally, the software not only searches for the exact word or logo (think direct hits), but also similar sounding words including spelling variations, e.g., “Quick” and “Kwik” for word marks, and variations on images for logos. Similar sounding word marks and similar looking logos being employed on the same class of goods or services are highly relevant when it comes down to interpreting the trademark clearance search.
The clearance search will generally be divided by the different databases searched (e.g., U.S. registered trademarks, state trademarks, domain names, etc.…). Then within each category the results will be ranked in level of relevance from: (i) direct hits (same word/image); (ii) words or phrases that contain one or more of the base words/images from the searched mark; and (iii) similar sounding/looking marks. Further, because the search will have been based on the class (or classes) of goods and services upon which the mark will be employed the closer the goods and services of the similar mark are to the goods and services of the searched mark the greater the relevance of the results.
     
If there are exact hits on exact goods and services often the best course of action will be to pick a new trademark and start over. However, if there are no directly conflicting marks in the same class of goods and services you will still need to weigh the results of the search. This is where the trademark clearance opinion letter enters our discussion.
 
A trademark attorney will review and analyze the results of the clearance search and prepare a trademark clearance opinion letter. The letter will weigh the significance of the search results and provide a legal opinion, not a guarantee, but a reasoned understanding based on the facts and the law. The opinion letter may be primarily directed towards success in obtaining registration of the mark before the USPTO, towards non-infringement of competing marks (a/k/a “freedom-to-operate”), or combinations of both. While there is much overlap between the two analyses, a complete freedom-to-operate opinion will usually be more involved (and costly) than a likelihood of registration opinion.  
​
Now back to our original discussion about “insurance”. A positive clearance opinion letter should give confidence to the trademark filer/user that they will have a good chance of obtaining registration and hopefully not infringe any existing trademarks when they market their goods and services. A negative clearance opinion letter will suggest that the trademark filer/user may want to think about choosing a different mark. Of course, there will be degrees of clearance opinions from highly positive to highly negative based on the facts of the search results. While there are costs associated with the clearance search and the opinion letter, these can be drastically outweighed by lost funds spent on rejected trademark applications, the costs of having to rebrand, and/or the costs of potential trademark infringement. So, think of the clearance search and opinion as insurance on your trademark. If you feel the costs of the insurance outweigh the value of the mark it may not be worth it for you, but if you think the mark is going to be highly valuable to your business it may be worth paying something up front to insure your branding costs and assist in avoiding infringement down the road.
 
If you are interested in filing a trademark or if you need advice on a trademark already in use it is highly advisable to consult an experienced IP attorney to discuss your individual needs and goals. If you have any questions about trademarks, clearance searches, or opinion letters, and would like to discuss protection and registration please contact me at [email protected] or visit my website at www.chiaraiplaw.com

Interest in the last year in all things cryto, particularly Bitcoin, has left many people excited, frustrated, elated, and probably more than anything, confused. As a IP attorney I am not going to opine on the financial aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., security/commodity/growth/value), and will focus instead on the underlying technology and how it relates to intellectual property. First, let’s discuss how blockchain technology works and how it’s related to cryptocurrencies, and bitcoin in particular.
 
Cryptocurrencies are digital systems usable as forms of payment for transactions. They can be created by a sovereign state, such as the (likely) future U.S. digital dollar to be issued by the U.S. Government and backed by the current analog U.S. dollar. Cryptocurrencies can also be created by corporations like Chase Bank or Macy’s to be controlled by their creators and used by their customers. Alternatively, they can be independent, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, and operate in a decentralized manner.
 
Blockchain technology, in a very simplified form, is a system for maintaining a digital registry or ledger of a series of transactions. The ledger is maintained in time stamped blocks that are built upon over time to ensure the accuracy and security of the underlying information. Blockchain technology as used in cryptocurrencies acts as a form of quasi-software enabled accounting and verification system. Bitcoin in particular has extremely complex verification criteria that enable its heightened security. Bitcoin also has a built-in scarcity that limits the total amount of Bitcoin that can be mined and the amount of Bitcoin that can be mined at successive periods (e.g., the amount of Bitcoin mineable per period decreases over time). Other cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum, Solana, Litecoin, Ripple and Dogecoin employ different types of blockchain that provide different transactional functionality. These alternative coins (“alt-coins”) also have different growth potentials either in total coins available or the total period of time, if any, over which they can be mined. Stablecoins are another form of cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to another asset such as the U.S. dollar or gold. Stable coins are theoretically less susceptible to the value fluctuations currently seen in crypto-coins such as Bitcoin, Ethereum or Dogecoin.    
 
So how does blockchain technology and specifically, Bitcoin fit into the IP world? Bitcoin is likely not protectable by U.S. patent law since the particular blockchain technology that enables it has been known by the public since 2008. What is known as the Bitcoin White Paper, written under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, outlines the blockchain system that maintains the Bitcoin registry. The ability of Bitcoin miners, the individuals or corporations running computers that maintain the blockchain registry, to build and maintain the registry is dependent on widespread and complete access to the blockchain methodology. These aspects of Bitcoin remove the novelty necessary for patentability. For similar reasons, Bitcoin would not be protectable under trade secret law. While it may have been possible for the pseudonymous Nakamoto to file for a Bitcoin patent back in 2008, the White Paper is now prior art that renders Bitcoin unpatentable (whether Bitcoin would be patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 in view of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 573 U.S. 208, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) (“Alice”) is a discussion for another post).
 
Trademark and copyright raise separate issues for Bitcoin. There are a registered U.S. trademarks (and many abandoned applications) that use the term bitcoin either in slogans or compound names for goods and services. One bitcoin trademark application at the USPTO attempting to use the term bitcoin (by itself) on digital currency was rejected for several reasons, one of which was that the USPTO determined the term bitcoin, at least as of 2016, had become a generic name for cryptocurrencies. As discussed in a prior post, generic terms should never become trademarks (see What is a Strong Trademark?). Many government IP offices around the world have taken similar actions, although there has been much confusion around the globe over some registrations, particularly in the UK. With regard to the bitcoin logo, early versions were allegedly created by “Nakamoto”, and at least one subsequent one was released under a creative commons license. There are no U.S. registrations for these early logo marks by themselves for financial transactions. This does not mean a cryptocurrency could not have a registered word mark or logo if they fulfilled the U.S. requirements for trademark protection (particularly one issued by a corporation like Chase Bank or Macy’s), just that the term bitcoin and the original logos, have not been registered in the U.S. for financial transactions (and likely will not be).   
 
Software and computer code can also be protected by copyright law. Copyright law requires authorship and therefore only the original creator of the Bitcoin White Paper should be able to register a copyright for that White Paper. However, because copyright registrations are generally based on an affirmation from the registrant that they are the original author, and copyright offices do not independently verify this information, final adjudication of ownership is often decided by the courts. This issue is currently being fought over in the UK courts over conflicting claims as to who is Satoshi Nakamoto. The ownership and potential enforcement of the copyright to the Bitcoin code and White Paper will likely be fought over for year to come.  
 
So where does this leave blockchain in the IP world? One confluence of blockchain and IP rights can be found in NFT’s or non-fungible tokens. These are digital certificates supported by blockchain technology that establish a secure and verifiable ownership of an item of interest.  The item can be a real world analog item such as a comic book or a painting, or it can be a digital item itself, such as a text message or a digital version of a painting, photograph or video. An extremely valuable NFT would be one in which the ownership of the NFT also included the ownership of the underlying copyright in the item (think double property rights). Blockchains have also been used for tracking ownership of patent portfolios , maintaining medical records, personal identity security, and music royalty payments. While human imagination may be the only limit for the uses of blockchain, future Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court cases will likely determine the extent to which patents claiming variations on blockchain can or cannot be enforceable (this will be heavily influenced by the progress of cases in line of Alice).
 
Stay tuned. Patent, trademark, and copyright crypto battles will continue over the years to come, and blockchain technology will likely be a part of everyone’s lives for the foreseeable future. If you have any questions about patents, trademarks or IP in general please contact me at [email protected] or visit my website at www.chiaraiplaw.com
​